Rajasthan HC Quashes Trial Court's Compensation Recovery Direction Against Police Inspector for Breach of Natural Justice

The Rajasthan High Court set aside a Special POCSO Court's order directing recovery of Rs. 3 lakh compensation from a police inspector who was never issued notice before the adverse direction was passed.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sitting singly at the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, on 20 July 2026 quashed the part of a Special POCSO Court judgment that directed recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- from a serving police inspector. The officer, Pavan Kumar—then SHO, Police Station Kotwali, District Kota City—was held liable by the trial court to reimburse compensation awarded to an acquitted accused, even though no notice was ever issued to him and no hearing was ever afforded. The High Court found that the absence of notice was a plain violation of the audi alteram partem principle and remitted the matter to the Special Judge to pass a fresh order after providing Pavan Kumar a full opportunity to be heard.

The Trial Court's Compensation Direction

The underlying criminal matter began with FIR No. 144/2020, registered on 31 August 2020 at Police Station Kotwali, Kota, for an offence under Section 376 IPC. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against one Anis Khan for offences under Sections 376(2)(l) and 376(2)(n) IPC. Cognizance was taken by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the case was thereafter committed to the Court of the Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 and Child Rights Protection Commission Act, 2005 No. 4, Kota.

Following a full trial, the Special Judge acquitted Anis Khan on 1 May 2023, extending him the benefit of doubt. Before closing the judgment, the trial court recorded that the accused had remained in jail for over one year on account of his arrest, suffered loss of livelihood, and endured physical and mental agony. His arrest, the court observed, had damaged his reputation in society. On these grounds the trial court held him entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

The direction to pay that sum was addressed to the State Government, with an accompanying order to recover the amount from three named officers: Mr. Udaylal, the then Sub-Inspector of Police Station Kotwali; Pavan Kumar, the then SHO of the same police station; and the then Superintendent of Police, Kota City. A copy of the order was also sent to the District Collector for compliance.

Petitioner's Challenge

Pavan Kumar filed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4218/2023 challenging the recovery direction. His counsel, Mr. R.K. Gouttam, advanced two primary contentions before the High Court.

First, Pavan Kumar had not investigated the matter at all and was not involved in the arrest of the accused. Counsel pointed out that when FIR No. 144/2020 was registered, Pavan Kumar was suffering from COVID-19. Despite this material fact, the trial court overlooked his non-involvement and still named him in the recovery direction.

Second, and more critically, the trial court passed the recovery direction without issuing any notice to Pavan Kumar and without giving him any opportunity of hearing before saddling him with financial liability. Counsel submitted that the impugned order was therefore unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.

The Public Prosecutor, Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, opposed the petition on behalf of the State of Rajasthan.

Why the Court Found the Direction Unsustainable

Justice Dhand examined the impugned judgment and confirmed from the record that before issuing the compensation recovery direction, the trial court had neither issued notice nor provided any opportunity of hearing to Pavan Kumar.

The High Court stated the governing principle plainly: before passing any adverse order against a person, a judicial court is obliged to follow the principles of natural justice, specifically the rule of audi alteram partem—hear the other side. In this case, that process was entirely absent.

“The aforesaid due process was not followed by the Trial Court, hence, the principles of natural justice have been violated.” The court held that this breach alone was sufficient to set aside the direction so far as it operated against the petitioner.

The court did not express any final view on whether Pavan Kumar was or was not responsible for the accused's arrest, or whether a recovery direction against him would ultimately be justified. Those questions were left open for the Special Judge to examine after affording proper hearing. The sole ground for quashing was the procedural failure: a binding financial direction had been passed against a named officer without giving him any chance to respond.

The matter had come up before the High Court in pursuance of directions issued by the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 773/2026, decided on 15 January 2026). In that matter, the Supreme Court had observed that interim orders in criminal revision petitions and petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. had allowed trials in serious offences—including rape, murder, dacoity, and dowry death—to remain stalled for long periods. High Courts were directed to take up such pending matters on priority and decide them expeditiously.

Outcome

Justice Dhand quashed and set aside the compensation recovery direction in the concluding portion of the Special Judge's judgment dated 1 May 2023, to the extent it operated against Pavan Kumar. The matter was remitted to the Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 and Child Rights Protection Commission Act, 2005 No. 4, Kota, with a direction to pass a fresh order after:

• issuing notice to Pavan Kumar;
• providing him a due opportunity of hearing; and
• taking into account the explanation furnished by him.

The criminal miscellaneous petition was disposed of accordingly. The stay application and all other pending applications in the petition were also disposed of. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Special Judge, Kota for compliance.